Cases 1 - 10 of 53
Norris v. Watson
as 3:2024cv01444
Respondent:
Warden Tom Watson
Petitioner:
Adam T. Norris
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Goodykoontz v. Cuyahoga County et al.
as 1:2024cv01309
Defendant:
Robert Botnick, Cuyahoga County, Tom Shaughnessy and others
Plaintiff:
David Goodykoontz
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Golston v. Watson
as 1:2024cv01127
Petitioner:
Rodney Golston
Respondent:
Warden Tom Watson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Mahvi v. Geauga County, Ohio Jobs and Family Services et al.
as 1:2024cv01098
Defendant:
Geauga County, Ohio Jobs and Family Services, Tom Meyer, Karen Sweet and others
Plaintiff:
ali PASCAL mahvi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Vitumukiza v. Waston
as 1:2024cv01102
Respondent:
Warden Tom Waston
Petitioner:
David Vitumukiza
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Little v. Watson et al.
as 3:2024cv01107
Defendant:
Warden Tom Watson and Correctional Officer John Doe
Plaintiff:
Matthew Little
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
King v. Watson
as 3:2024cv00387
Petitioner:
Richard N. King
Respondent:
Warden Tom Watson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Garland v. Mason et al.
as 4:2024cv00298
Plaintiff:
Jason Milford Garland
Defendant:
Major Daniel Mason, Chaplin Tom and Sergeant Maynard
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Carter v. Watson
as 3:2024cv00198
Petitioner:
Terrez L. Carter
Respondent:
Warden Tom Watson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Fenderson v. Management & Training Corp. et al.
as 3:2023cv02119
Plaintiff:
Tayke Fenderson
Defendant:
Management & Training Corp., Warden Tom Watson, Daniel Price and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
